| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
|
Re-posted here as it?s a waste of time discussing stuff in the general section of the SG forum 
I've put this post here as I think it pertains to epic development in general (and the priority lists currently in development). I'm referring to what some have dubbed an Epic Air Arms race.
Nealhunt in particular I believe made some good comments about this on the old forum.
Essentially I think there may be a problem brewing with new armies as they come out (of course I could be wrong It wouldn't be the first time!) in that their air forces project a greater threat from the air than the original lists were designed to meet.
As I see it air power in the original 3 armies was a fun but not dominant part of the game. It encouraged the use of flak and aircraft, in my experience about 10-12 flak 'shots' and several aircraft. Columns of armour had their SP flak trundling alongside and everything looked cool (though there is a gaping hole with infantry flak, where oh where are all my WWII toys? Ahem, somewhat off topic there). Landing craft were lost tot he odd lucky shot but otherwise seemed to encounter more trouble on the ground and so on.
The option was there for one upmanship in the air giving a welcome edge to a player that wished to gamble but it wasn't an overpowering one. A player didn't expect to rule the ground from the sky or be completely outclassed if their flak umbrella collapsed.
The Eldar came out and I think it has to be said (with one of two quibbles about the bombers from some) their airforce was more powerful but didn't upset that dynamic too much and start people racing for air defences. Indeed the biggest consequence was to negate the chance of others achieving air superiority through their excellent fighters and brilliant flak defences.
Now newer lists are using air in different ways. Some are trying to place it in the existing power scale, others to make up for deficiencies in the main body of troops which is giving rise to the 'arms race'. Its not intentional but as enemy airforces get stronger, i.e. carry MW or TK attacks (with or without additional abilities like pulse), have longer ranged or simply better AA intercept values, longer ranged main weapons defeating flak defences, get more resilient in squadron sized groups rather than individual craft etc the threat from the air grows.
Now the air rules in Epic don't strike me as fully integrated into the game as other aspects and I think the increasing stress puts too much pressure on certain (or all armies). First off army selection changes, you have to have more flak or better/more fighters. The threat of, say, flying long ranged MW pulse attacks to a marine force is enormous. In a tournament (the reason behind these point values) you may face such a beast and if you don't tool up to defend against it you probably will not have a hope in that game.
Finally how do you cost these things? If the opponent hasn't invested enough in quality/quantity of air defences their potential battlefield effect is far greater, and if we start to expect heavy flak in every army it leaves some out in the cold (not everyone has good/reliable/long ranged flak) and makes people army selections a bit more predictable and to be frank less fun to do. Those that lack good air defences (marines can struggle and Imperials in general lack a good air to air interceptor, the Thunderbolt being a good ground attack aircraft but indifferent air defender, not to mention the potential to strafe feral Orks into the ground) will suffer a fair bit more or have an even more bland time picking the army.
So the points become harder to determine, cost it for its ideal use then have its selection pretty much dictate basic tactics due to its cost, or put a pints value on it that can be exploited by a good air commander or against a disadvantaged foe?
What are others thoughts on this? I know there a bit of discussion going on about a new set of air rules in some quarters, would these make the increased variety less of a problem and more of a flavourful opportunity?
If not I think a few guidelines should be laid down to limit aircraft power, I know what currently I would favour but what about others?
Then Nealhunts comments
TRC is right in that I have a significant concern about this.
In the core armies, the major restriction on aircraft was that they were in relatively small formations and not terribly difficult to suppress or possibly kill. Small formations (size and point-wise) means that maxing out on air cover is to a certain extent self-limiting if the enemy has modest amounts of flak coverage. More formations = more flak shots = more planes downed.
The obvious exception is the Ork FB formations and they are considered clearly better than the Imperial Navy formations. But even then, they are short range and fielded in large formations, considered expendable, because they are pretty much required to fly through flak to hit anything.
The biggest "creep" on air cover is due to much more capable aircraft on an individual basis. As the point cost of the craft rise, it's possible to take a similar portion of the army in aircraft without nearly as much vulnerability to flak.
Some people have claimed that the fact that a single loss of a heavier-armed aircraft makes up for that change, but I disagree. With multiple formations facing moderate amounts of flak, it is almost unavoidable that there will be a need to brave the flak umbrella to hit a desired target. There are only so many formations that can be attacked without entering enemy flak coverage. Vulnerable formations can retreat back into coverage or the flak weapons can simply move to cover them later, preventing multiple air strikes on a single formation.
Heavier aircraft can hit a single formation if it "sticks its nose out" from the flak coverage even briefly. This reduces the potential enemy flak response. Also, the heavier aircraft are tending to pick up longer range weapons. This means that it is much harder to keep a unit under flak protection in the first place. The extra range further means that the chances of disengagement without encountering flak or exiting an enemy board edge is greater, i.e. not only less chances of actual kills, but less chance of garnering BMs.
====
I would like to see air units for armies in development to concentrate on keeping the air power of individual aircraft proportionate to the existing units rather than trying to make the unit stats fit as closely as possible to 40K. The aircraft rules are very highly abstracted and attempting to make them more literal is likely to end up causing balance problems.
And Dafrca in general seemed to aggree. I'm sure though he will post himself
What about the rest of ya?
_________________ If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913 "Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography." General Plumer, 191x
|
|
I don't like or play 40K, the models are nice, but the rules are generally purile, at best. So I don't like to make the Epic-40K paradigm. 
